N.C. Bakshi vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
1996 Latest Caselaw 915 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

(1) The present Civil Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner against respondent No.1, Sh.H.K. Khanna, Hony. General Secretary, respondent No.2, Sh.C.K. Khanna, Hony. Club Secretary and respondent No.3, Sh.K.K. Mehra, President of the Delhi and District Cricket Association, Ferozshah Kotla Ground. Sh. O.P. Kapur, General Manager and Sh. G.S. Kehlo, Project Manager of Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., have been imp leaded as respondent Nos.4 and 5 respectively.

(2) The petitioner in the present petition alleged that the respondents have deliberately disobeyed and disregarded the order of the Court and have carried out construction. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the order passed on 10-9- 1996, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

"7THrespondent will file an affidavit. The petitioner will take photographs as on 11-9-1996 and file them alongwith an affidavit in the Court. No obstruction will be caused by the 7th respondent to the photographs being taken by the petitioner.

THERE shall be no further construction by the 7th respondent. We record the undertaking given to this effect by the 7th respondents counsel.

AFFIDAVIT to be filed within a week.

ADJOURNED to 25-9-1996."

(3) The above order had been passed on the application namely C.M.6013/96, moved by the petitioner alleging that the respondent No. 7 in the writ petition namely Delhi and District Cricket Association had been illegally, unauthorisedly and without sanction carrying out construction at Ferozshah Kotla Ground, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.

(4) The petitioner claims to have taken photographs on 10-9-1996 itself instead of 11-9- 1996 and has filed the same on record. Petitioner's further grievance is that on 17-9-1996, when the petitioner could take only a few photographs, he was prevented from taking further photographs of the alleged "on going" construction. The petitioner has produced on record the photographs purportedly taken on 10-9-1996 and the photographs claimed to have been taken on 17-9-1996. The petitioner further relies on certain press reports appearing in the "Delhi Mid Day" wherein, it is reported that the photographic proofs exist showing that construction was going on full swing despite the restraint order. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are sought to be made liable as the contractors employed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, while respondent No.3 is sought to be made liable as being the person violating the undertaking given to this Court on 10-9-1996.

(5) We may notice here that this Court in the writ petition, having regard to the fact that the final test match between India and Australia was scheduled on 10-10-1996 and the undertaking of the respondents that in case they were unable to get requisite permission for the construction, the same would be demolished, respondents were permitted vide order dated 23-9-1996, to complete the flooring, white washing and painting of the area plastered. Again on 25-9-1996, the respondents were permitted to carry out the plastering of the building and do the completion of the facade.

(6) We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sh. P.P. Malhotra and counsel for the respondents, Sh. Arun Jaitley. The contention of the respondent is that the basic structure was completed and only finishing work remained to be done and that the respondents have not in any manner violated or contravened the order passed by this Court, since no further construction has been carried out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the comparison of the photographs taken on 10-9-1996, appearing at pages 152 to 155 of the paper book i.e. writ file and the photographs now filed with the copy of the newspaper "Hindustan Times" would show that the respondents have violated the order. We find on examining the photographs referred to by the petitioner that it cannot be said that photographs filed by the petitioner, with which comparison is sought to be made, were taken on 10-9-1996 as claimed. There is nothing in the photographs to show that the said photographs were taken on 10-9- 1996 and were not of an earlier period although the petitioner has filed an affidavit. There is no supporting newspaper with the photographs showing the date 10-9-1996. Even otherwise the Court had specifically permitted the petitioner to take photographs on 11-9-1996. Moreover, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty, comparing the photographs said to have been taken on 17-9-1996 that any further structural construction has been carried out. Besides reliance cannot be placed on a newspaper report which simply represents that photographic proof exists of the construction going on. The photographs published with the newspaper "Delhi Mid Day" only shows repairing of flooring being carried out.

(7) Considering the matter in its totality, we do not find that the petitioner has established a clear case of breach of the undertaking or wilful disobedience of this Court's order or shown contumacious conduct of the respondents. We find that the respondents have themselves sought permission for even further jobs such as flooring, plastering and completion works and the completion of the facade. In these circumstances, we are of the view that this is not a fit case to initiate contempt proceedings. The petition is accordingly, dismissed at the stage of notice to show cause.